TOTAL PETROLUEM GH. LTD AND 2 OTHERS vs. GHANA AIRPORTS CO.LTD AND THE REPUBLIC vs. GHANA AIRPORTS CO. LTD AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE TOTAL PETROLUEM GH. LTD AND 2 OTHERS [2017]DLHC3662

TOTAL PETROLUEM GH. LTD AND 2 OTHERS vs. GHANA AIRPORTS CO.LTD AND THE REPUBLI... [2017]DLHC3662

Date	2017-01-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0298/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3662

GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

K. PEASAH BOADU FOR APPLICANTS

SAMUEL CODJOE FOR RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC3662
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >TOTAL PETROLUEM GH. LTD
AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA AIRPORTS CO.LTD<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA AIRPORTS CO. LTD
AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE TOTAL PETROLUEM GH. LTD AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. CM/0298/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;17TH
JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K. PEASAH BOADU FOR APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p>SAMUEL CODJOE FOR RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>This contempt application was brought under Order 50 rule 1 of
C.I. 47. The applicants pray this court to commit the two respondents for
contempt of court, in that the respondents failed to obey the lawful orders of
this court made on the 21st April, 2016. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A brief summary of the facts which gave rise to the present
application is that the applicants filed a suit in the Commercial Court on the
20th of April, 2016 asking for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that the decision
of the defendants to prevent plaintiffs from using the main apron at the
Airport and decommission plaintiffs existing hydrant system is contrary to the
provisions of the lease agreement dated March 2011, and the offer letter of the
defendant dated 9th July, 2014. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that by virtue of
lease agreement executed between the parties dated March, 2011, and offer
letter dated 9th July, 2014 the plaintiffs are (through JUHI
partners) entitled to connect their fueling facilities to the New Hydrant Line
at Kotoka International Airport (the Airport) prior to decommissioning of
existing hydrant facilities. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Any other relief the court may
deem fit. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">4.